Do you alienate the growing masses of people backing Palestine or alienate the organized association that has deep tendrils into finance, media, lobbying, and entertainment and is more than ready to take you out?
You need them all to get in, but even after you’re in, you STILL have to deal with AIPAC.
You need them all to get in, but even after you’re in, you STILL have to deal with AIPAC.
But people keep telling me that I need to wait until after the election to push for change - is that not the case? Really sounds like voters loose all leverage once the election is over, whereas the monied interests keep theirs?
Primaries: “I agree with those progressive policies, but we need to vote for the person most likely to win”
That’s what moderates in the party believe. If progressives want to move the party left, they will have to prove moderates wrong. They can only do this by actually winning primaries and then winning in the general.
For example, when AOC successfully primaried Crowley. Or when Newman successfully primaried Lipinsky. Progressives need more victories like those to become dominant within the party. If they can’t achieve that, then moderates are right.
If they can’t achieve that, then moderates are right.
I’m curious if you’re one of those people who think our electoral system needs to be reformed, and how that opinion squares with this essentialist perspective of electoral outcomes
Sure, it needs to be reformed. But if progressive candidates cannot be viable until the electoral system is reformed, then we should support moderates until that happens.
Furthermore, some offices are in less need of systemic reform than others. For example, elections for Senator and governor are straightforward popular vote contests unaffected by gerrymandering. Therefore they are relatively fairer tests of the electability of progressive candidates.
But if progressive candidates cannot be viable until the electoral system is reformed
your perspective sounds like a chicken-and-the-egg problem. how do you think progressive candidates could break this cycle with an american overton window this far to the right?
Tightrope walkin’
Do you alienate the growing masses of people backing Palestine or alienate the organized association that has deep tendrils into finance, media, lobbying, and entertainment and is more than ready to take you out?
You need them all to get in, but even after you’re in, you STILL have to deal with AIPAC.
But people keep telling me that I need to wait until after the election to push for change - is that not the case? Really sounds like voters loose all leverage once the election is over, whereas the monied interests keep theirs?
If you want the Democratic party to change, you have an opportunity every two years during the primaries.
Primaries: “I agree with those progressive policies, but we need to vote for the person most likely to win”
Campaign: “wait until after they win to protest and push them left”
Post-election: “They have a mandate to govern and they didn’t campaign on your progressive politics. Wait until next primaries”
That’s what moderates in the party believe. If progressives want to move the party left, they will have to prove moderates wrong. They can only do this by actually winning primaries and then winning in the general.
For example, when AOC successfully primaried Crowley. Or when Newman successfully primaried Lipinsky. Progressives need more victories like those to become dominant within the party. If they can’t achieve that, then moderates are right.
I’m curious if you’re one of those people who think our electoral system needs to be reformed, and how that opinion squares with this essentialist perspective of electoral outcomes
Sure, it needs to be reformed. But if progressive candidates cannot be viable until the electoral system is reformed, then we should support moderates until that happens.
Furthermore, some offices are in less need of systemic reform than others. For example, elections for Senator and governor are straightforward popular vote contests unaffected by gerrymandering. Therefore they are relatively fairer tests of the electability of progressive candidates.
your perspective sounds like a chicken-and-the-egg problem. how do you think progressive candidates could break this cycle with an american overton window this far to the right?